> -----Original Message----- > From: Softwires [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Cb B > Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2014 10:58 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [Softwires] draft-byrne-v6ops-clatip-01 > > Hi Softwires, > > Ales presented draft-byrne-v6ops-clatip-01 in softwires at the last IETF > meeting. > > I am attempting to have this I-D adopted by v6ops, but v6ops requested > feedback from softwires first. > > Pertaining to the minutes, i would like to address some topics to make sure it > is ok for v6ops to move forward with adoption > > https://tools.ietf.org/wg/softwire/minutes?item=minutes-89-softwire.html > > The addresses, both in DS-lite and 464xlat, never appears on the wire so > there is no chance of overlap or collision.
Disagree, that conclusion doesn't follow (and in my experience it's wrong). Overlap/collision happens when there are two interfaces on the same host (even if they're not in use simultaneously). The collisions can affect the routing table (if the host implements in such a way), ACLs like in host firewall policies and such, and various application-layer uses. It's fine to specify use as the default range (e.g. for 464xlat or DS-lite) but important to never constrain it to only that range, assuming the range is made non-DS-lite specific. -Dave _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
